251–260 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh?
The argument lefties like to make about free speech is that companies are free to choose who can use and what can be said on their platforms. Free speech only applies to government. Well, looks like government has been a part of it.
Buddy, it's called the first amendment. It isn't a hard read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because of laws passed after the Enron scandal, publicly traded companies are required to retain internal communications for long periods of time. So if you're going to blame anyone for this, blame the government. Also the owners of Twitter knew that Musk would have access to these messages. That was priced into the deal. Executives and managers at publicly traded companies are very aware of information retention pol…
> Twitter and the US government collude I see everyone saying this while ignoring the timeline. This happened before the 2020 elections. Biden was not president back then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a blatant first amendment violation. Twitter are acting as agents to state to silence individuals. The federal government cannot pick and choose who gets to speak.
What federal government was in the office in October of 2020?
I would not be surprised to find out sometime that there are judges who might disagree with you on that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because of laws passed after the Enron scandal, publicly traded companies are required to retain internal communications for long periods of time. So if you're going to blame anyone for this, blame the government. Also the owners of Twitter knew that Musk would have access to these messages. That was priced into the deal. Executives and managers at publicly traded companies are very aware of information retention pol…
> Twitter and the US government collude I see everyone saying this while ignoring the timeline. This happened before the 2020 elections. Biden was not president back then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That nothing in work email is private is well-known (not everyone knows this). That wasn't my point. I place "company looks at employee's email after a credible report of hacking/abuse/whatever" and "rich person purchases major tech platform and uses it to publicize ex-employees email to affect public opinions" in two different categories, especially given the ex-employee was a C-level officer handling some extremely…
They’re telling people the truth about how the decisions were made. Complaining that this “affects public opinion” and that the emails were “sensitive“ is just a fancy way of saying that what the public was previously told were lies.
Besides, the poster's point was that many of these people are now going to receive death threats from whackjobs, not that their contents were too sensitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s blowing my mind to see people on Twitter reading the story and thinking this is an issue of whether or not Hunter Biden is a problem. This is clearly the much more pernicious issue that 1. social media companies are massively influencing the dissemination of information on an ad hoc basis informed by personal political whims and 2. even the leaders of these organizations are unable to rein in these influences.
Honest Question: If the white house contacts Twitter and asks for a tweet to be removed, is that a first amendment violation?
It seems like something like this will never hit the HN frontpage. I ponder if its really just due to the upvote/downvote + flag ratio. Edit: It seems to have been unflagged manually.
This comment illustrates why it's a good idea to prune these kinds of stories from the homepage. No one learns anything new or surprising from discussing this stuff here, at this point we could have the same political nerdfight in our sleep.
It seems like this is basically coming from Elon Musk through someone he chose.
What you’re about to read is the first installment in a series, based upon thousands of internal documents obtained by sources at Twitter
Is Elon Musk now "sources at Twitter"?
There might be some interesting bits in here, but I think it's important to note that this is Musk pushing his agenda. Is this just propaganda? It's being presented as a revelation by an outside reporter who got access to previously secret Twitter Files from "sources". Instead, is it just Musk's agenda being told by another person?
Imagine if Zuckerberg hired a PR firm to put out revelations that showed him in a positive light. We'd mock it mercilessly. This seems like basically the same thing, but he grabbed a Substack writer looking who will get paid through subscribers and notoriety rather than by Musk. "I won't pay you, but I'll send everyone to your tweets, Substack, and book where you can make millions," just sounds like hiring a PR firm with extra steps.
Politicians should never be able to directly influence the moderation of social media items they find politically unfavorable; I don't care which party does it. I can understand something that involves direct threats/calls to violence, but that's about it. Anyone that has used Twitter for some time knows the moderation was often not all that even, not just by pure political means but also threats of violence etc were…
What if the content is illegally obtained personal material of the politician's civilian family members?